Roman Catholics say yes, we are "valid but illicit." (What a compliment!)

I've heard that "valid but illicit" many times from a variety of people but I've never once seen anyone provide a Catholic document to back up the "illicit" part. (I actually had a bit of a falling out with someone once, when he admitted that he couldn't back up "valid but illicit" but refused to stop saying it anyhow.)

The only thing I can think of is that perhaps the Catholic magisterium figured that "illicit" goes without saying.

It appears to be from canon law (see references at the end of article). If you type "valid but illicit" into Google it comes back with a whole slew of things.

Thanks for the link. I don't think I've ever seen that page before.

I haven't looked through the various references at the end; but the article itself makes no mention of the Eastern Orthodox, so that would seem to support what I said to Alveus Lacuna.

You are quite right here Peter. The Catholic Church has not said that Orthodox sacraments are valid but "illicit"...There are a number of reasons for that. The primary one is that it makes absolutely no sense for one Church to try to pass judgment on another Church in terms of whether or not their practices conform to their canons. It cannot be done. Only Orthodoxy can judge her norms and interpret her canons. The same with the Catholic Church. Only she can interpret her own canons.

M.

Except when ruling on Anglican orders, right?

In Christ,Andrew

No...Anglican orders are not valid but illicit, they are invalid.

I don't think I said anything about validity or licitity (is that even a word?). Mary said:

Quote

The primary one is that it makes absolutely no sense for one Church to try to pass judgment on another Church in terms of whether or not their practices conform to their canons. It cannot be done.

I just happened to bring up the Anglicans, who had their church judged by yours.

In Christ,Andrew

Oh I see that now. Sorry, I misunderstood what you were getting at. However, what Maria is talking about is whether something is licit or not. That is much different than whether a Sacrament is valid. Something can be illicit but still valid, but Anglican orders are invalid.

Roman Catholics say yes, we are "valid but illicit." (What a compliment!)

I've heard that "valid but illicit" many times from a variety of people but I've never once seen anyone provide a Catholic document to back up the "illicit" part. (I actually had a bit of a falling out with someone once, when he admitted that he couldn't back up "valid but illicit" but refused to stop saying it anyhow.)

The only thing I can think of is that perhaps the Catholic magisterium figured that "illicit" goes without saying.

It appears to be from canon law (see references at the end of article). If you type "valid but illicit" into Google it comes back with a whole slew of things.

Thanks for the link. I don't think I've ever seen that page before.

I haven't looked through the various references at the end; but the article itself makes no mention of the Eastern Orthodox, so that would seem to support what I said to Alveus Lacuna.

You are quite right here Peter. The Catholic Church has not said that Orthodox sacraments are valid but "illicit"...There are a number of reasons for that. The primary one is that it makes absolutely no sense for one Church to try to pass judgment on another Church in terms of whether or not their practices conform to their canons. It cannot be done. Only Orthodoxy can judge her norms and interpret her canons. The same with the Catholic Church. Only she can interpret her own canons.

M.

Except when ruling on Anglican orders, right?

In Christ,Andrew

No...Anglican orders are not valid but illicit, they are invalid.

I don't think I said anything about validity or licitity (is that even a word?). Mary said:

Quote

The primary one is that it makes absolutely no sense for one Church to try to pass judgment on another Church in terms of whether or not their practices conform to their canons. It cannot be done.

I just happened to bring up the Anglicans, who had their church judged by yours.

In Christ,Andrew

Oh I see that now. Sorry, I misunderstood what you were getting at. However, what Maria is talking about is whether something is licit or not. That is much different than whether a Sacrament is valid. Something can be illicit but still valid, but Anglican orders are invalid.

No offense to Peter, but following what Podkarpatska, I can't really disagree with Rome's assessment. :/ Things may have been different in the early 20th century, but ISTM that the Anglican Communion is a chaotic mess and I don't know anyone could determine differently. They should either become RC or Orthodox, IMHO.

In Christ,Andrew

Logged

"I will pour out my prayer unto the Lord, and to Him will I proclaim my grief; for with evils my soul is filled, and my life unto hades hath drawn nigh, and like Jonah I will pray: From corruption raise me up, O God." -Ode VI, Irmos of the Supplicatory Canon to the Theotokos

Roman Catholics say yes, we are "valid but illicit." (What a compliment!)

I've heard that "valid but illicit" many times from a variety of people but I've never once seen anyone provide a Catholic document to back up the "illicit" part. (I actually had a bit of a falling out with someone once, when he admitted that he couldn't back up "valid but illicit" but refused to stop saying it anyhow.)

The only thing I can think of is that perhaps the Catholic magisterium figured that "illicit" goes without saying.

It appears to be from canon law (see references at the end of article). If you type "valid but illicit" into Google it comes back with a whole slew of things.

Thanks for the link. I don't think I've ever seen that page before.

I haven't looked through the various references at the end; but the article itself makes no mention of the Eastern Orthodox, so that would seem to support what I said to Alveus Lacuna.

You are quite right here Peter. The Catholic Church has not said that Orthodox sacraments are valid but "illicit"...There are a number of reasons for that. The primary one is that it makes absolutely no sense for one Church to try to pass judgment on another Church in terms of whether or not their practices conform to their canons. It cannot be done. Only Orthodoxy can judge her norms and interpret her canons. The same with the Catholic Church. Only she can interpret her own canons.

M.

Except when ruling on Anglican orders, right?

In Christ,Andrew

No...Anglican orders are not valid but illicit, they are invalid.

I don't think I said anything about validity or licitity (is that even a word?). Mary said:

Quote

The primary one is that it makes absolutely no sense for one Church to try to pass judgment on another Church in terms of whether or not their practices conform to their canons. It cannot be done.

I just happened to bring up the Anglicans, who had their church judged by yours.

In Christ,Andrew

Oh I see that now. Sorry, I misunderstood what you were getting at. However, what Maria is talking about is whether something is licit or not.

No offense to Peter, but following what Podkarpatska, I can't really disagree with Rome's assessment. :/ Things may have been different in the early 20th century, but ISTM that the Anglican Communion is a chaotic mess and I don't know anyone could determine differently. They should either become RC or Orthodox, IMHO.

In Christ,Andrew

Become either Catholic or Orthodox, you say? Well, if that's your story, than stick with it.

As far to my claims, after rethinking it, i retract the proof behind my claims, and reshape them to that, because we are not members of the RCC, the RCC does not hold binding Canon law to us(well, they still consider ME bound to canon law, but that is besides the point)

But even if you agree with Apostolicae Curae, that isn't the end of the story: it only says that Anglicans lost valid orders at some point in time.

Recall what I said earlier: in principle, Catholics should recognize Anglican orders, because of Dutch Old Catholic lines.

If you lost your ordinations, then you have no priests and no bishops, which means any chance for future ordinations to be invalid. Now, there is the issue that vagante catholic bishops entered the anglician church, but that doesnt matter, as long as the ordinations are followed according to the Anglician rite, then it is meaningless. And, i cant back this claim up, but if what I have heard about the Oath required to become monarch, if it is truly the teaching of the anglician church that the Eucharist is merely a symbol, then it doesnt matter. they lack the intent, which also results in an invalid Eucharist

“..[Saint Dunstan] became Bishop of Worcester and then Bishop of London. King Edgar made Dunstan the 25th Archbishop of Canterbury in 959. The restoration of monastic life, which had fallen into disarray in the previous century, was almost wholly Dunstan’s work. He founded over forty new monasteries, including the great abbeys of Peterborough, Ely, and Thorney. The earliest complete coronation text for an English monarch was compiled by Dunstan for King Edgar and became the model for future coronations, putting emphasis on the bond between church and monarch thus making the coronation a sacred act. Dunstan’s coronation ceremony still forms the basis of royal coronations today. It is said that he also designed the royal coronation crown.

“When he died in 988, Dunstan was buried at Canterbury Cathedral next to the high altar.”

“..[Saint Dunstan] became Bishop of Worcester and then Bishop of London. King Edgar made Dunstan the 25th Archbishop of Canterbury in 959. The restoration of monastic life, which had fallen into disarray in the previous century, was almost wholly Dunstan’s work. He founded over forty new monasteries, including the great abbeys of Peterborough, Ely, and Thorney. The earliest complete coronation text for an English monarch was compiled by Dunstan for King Edgar and became the model for future coronations, putting emphasis on the bond between church and monarch thus making the coronation a sacred act. Dunstan’s coronation ceremony still forms the basis of royal coronations today. It is said that he also designed the royal coronation crown.

“When he died in 988, Dunstan was buried at Canterbury Cathedral next to the high altar.”

Wow, that text was really replete with both history and theology of the Church of England. And I might add, to those who have complained about the poverty of the English language with respect to prayer life - get a life!

I don't think I said anything about validity or licitity (is that even a word?). Mary said:

Quote

The primary one is that it makes absolutely no sense for one Church to try to pass judgment on another Church in terms of whether or not their practices conform to their canons. It cannot be done.

I just happened to bring up the Anglicans, who had their church judged by yours.

In Christ,Andrew

The question of validity of sacraments is something quite different. I qualified my statement to refer ONLY to what is licit or not. The very idea of licit or not and the distinction between licit and valid is an internal matter, whereas the validity of a sacrament is a matter of the universal recognition of Apostolic Succession that is not dependent upon internal matters of canon law.

I don't think I said anything about validity or licitity (is that even a word?). Mary said:

Quote

The primary one is that it makes absolutely no sense for one Church to try to pass judgment on another Church in terms of whether or not their practices conform to their canons. It cannot be done.

I just happened to bring up the Anglicans, who had their church judged by yours.

In Christ,Andrew

The question of validity of sacraments is something quite different. I qualified my statement to refer ONLY to what is licit or not. The very idea of licit or not and the distinction between licit and valid is an internal matter, whereas the validity of a sacrament is a matter of the universal recognition of Apostolic Succession that is not dependent upon internal matters of canon law.

I don't think I said anything about validity or licitity (is that even a word?). Mary said:

Quote

The primary one is that it makes absolutely no sense for one Church to try to pass judgment on another Church in terms of whether or not their practices conform to their canons. It cannot be done.

I just happened to bring up the Anglicans, who had their church judged by yours.

In Christ,Andrew

The question of validity of sacraments is something quite different. I qualified my statement to refer ONLY to what is licit or not. The very idea of licit or not and the distinction between licit and valid is an internal matter, whereas the validity of a sacrament is a matter of the universal recognition of Apostolic Succession that is not dependent upon internal matters of canon law.

M.

That distinction always confuses 'us'.

It is simply a way of explaining why we do not need to be Donatists, and explaining that the power of the sacraments comes from the Trinity, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit...and the authority to minister the sacraments is a divine gift given to the Church which governs on earth by established laws or canons.

That which is licit refers directly to the laws of governance, while validity points to the divine source of the authority and power of the sacraments. The ultimate source for both is divine but the institution of the laws themselves is earthly.

About when was the sacramental question answered with "we don't know" or "no"? I'm referring mostly to Catholic/Orthodox intercommunion that existed, primarily in Eastern Europe, till the late 1300s or early 1400s (this also seems to raise some flags with the 1204 date, but that's another issue). And I understand that when this happened isn't as important as the truth behind the matter. Which Orthodox theologians/saints are noted for advocating this opinion specifically to Roman Catholics and not heretics in general?